From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] Ignore stolen time in the softlockup watchdog Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:00:49 +0200 Message-ID: <4608C121.4050309@cosmosbay.com> References: <20070327053816.881735237@goop.org> <20070327054106.664262413@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: In-reply-to: <20070327054106.664262413@goop.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel , virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , john stultz , Zachary Amsden , James Morris , Dan Hecht , Paul Mackerras , Martin Schwidefsky , Prarit Bhargava , Chris Lalancette , Rick Lindsley List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Jeremy Fitzhardinge a =E9crit : > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long long, touch_timestamp); =2E.. > void touch_softlockup_watchdog(void) > { > - __raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) =3D jiffies; > + __raw_get_cpu_var(touch_timestamp) =3D sched_clock(); > } Not very clear if this is safe on 32bit, since this is not anymore atom= ic. Maybe a comment would help ?